An asset is property, an item, or something else that has intrinsic or external value.2 Assets include cash, real estate, land, buildings, cars, and recreational vehicles. Other types include liquor licenses, professional certifications, income tax refunds, and works of art. In short, an asset could be anything of value to the person who owns, owns, or seeks it. For asset forfeiture cases involving more than one federal judicial district, the U.S. Attorney initiating the forfeiture action has the primary responsibility for ensuring that all participants in the asset forfeiture program are informed and that appropriate and timely planning is carried out prior to seizure in the districts where the assets are seized as a result of this asset forfeiture case. In the event of criminal forfeiture, the Attorney General of the United States will ensure appropriate and timely coordination with the United States Marshals Service prior to the indictment in order to prepare and assess the management of assets and the financial requirements of assets that will be forfeited under criminal law. The U.S. Attorney should consult with the United States Marshals Service before submitting to a court proposals for orders imposing restrictions, seizures, property management or financial management requirements with respect to property that is or will be in the custody of the Marshals Service. To explore in depth the complex world of asset seizure and forfeiture, the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin presents this article in two parts. The first provides an introduction to the topic and provides readers with a basic understanding of seizure and forfeiture, including common investigative techniques and best practices for law enforcement.1 When targeting residential and commercial real estate and businesses for asset expiration, potential net equity should be calculated. See Chapter 1 of the Property Forfeiture Policy Manual. If the financial analysis shows that the sum of all liens (including judgment privileges), mortgages, and administrative and transfer costs reaches or exceeds the expected proceeds from the sale of the property, the USAO or, in the case of actions for administrative forfeiture, the confiscation authority must either (1) decide not to proceed with the seizure, or (2) acknowledge the potential financial loss and document the circumstances surrounding the seizure and commencement. of the action for revocation.

Any U.S. attorney can introduce higher district-wide thresholds for judicial forfeiture cases. U.S. prosecutors should consult with seizure agencies affected by the change and develop written district-wide guidelines for implementation in consultation with those agencies. These higher thresholds must be communicated in writing to MLARS. A higher threshold than that set out in the Directive cannot be used as a basis for not contributing to the seizure of property if another district with lower monetary thresholds so requests if the requesting district intends to take legal action. Pub. L. 100-690, § 6469(b)(2), (3), replaced “the Attorney General, the Minister of Finance or the Postal Service” with “the Attorney General or the Minister of Finance” and added a provision that the Attorney General is solely responsible for enforcing requests for surrender or mitigation in respect of property involved in judicial forfeiture proceedings.

point (b). Ed. L. 100–690, § 6463(b), which ordered the amendment of paragraph (b) by replacing “a violation of Article 5313(a) or Article 5324 of Title 31 or Article 1956 or 1957 of that Title under investigation by the Minister of Finance” with “involved in a violation of Article 1956 or 1957 of that Title being investigated by the Minister of Finance”, and any property that has lapsed under paragraph (a)(1)(C) of this section” has been enforced by the fact that the new wording may be forfeited by the Minister of Finance by “being the subject of a violation of section 1956 or 1957 of this Title being investigated by the Minister of Finance, and any property that has lapsed under paragraph (a)(1)(C) of this Article” has been replaced in the introductory provisions, to reflect the likely intent of Congress. Section (a) (1) (C). Pub. L. 100–690, § 6463(a)(2), deleted.

(C), which reads as follows: “Any coin and currency (or other monetary instrument required by the Minister of Finance) or any interest in other property, including a deposit in a financial institution, resulting from such coin or currency involved in a transaction or attempted transaction contrary to section 5313(a) or 5324 of Title 31, may be confiscated and confiscated for the benefit of the United States Government. No ownership rights or interests in property may be seized or confiscated if the infringement is committed by a national financial institution audited by a supervisory authority of the Bundesbank or a financial institution regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission or any partner, director, officer or employee of the latter. “Heads of investigating authorities can continue to set higher thresholds for seizures by their authorities. If a head of an investigating authority sets higher monetary thresholds than those set out in the Directive, the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Service must be informed in writing of this change. Section 981(k) authorizes the United States to retain, seize, and confiscate property in bank accounts outside the United States by permitting the confiscation, seizure, and forfeiture of an equivalent amount of money from any correspondent/interbank account held by the foreign financial institution in the United States. See 18 U.S.C. § 981(k). Authorization to use article 981 (k) is granted to the head of MLARS in consultation with the relevant officials of the BSI, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Given that these stakeholders need the opportunity to review the proposed application for paragraph 981(k) on policy issues associated with the potential use of paragraph 981(b) to assess its impact, formal approval of the use of paragraph 981(k) should be obtained well in advance of the anticipated attempt to withhold or seize assets in the corresponding accounts of a foreign bank. Applications for section 981(k) permits must be submitted in writing to the Head of MLARS and through the Deputy Head of the IPU of MLARS, who is responsible for coordinating the permitting process.

Applications for design approval under Article 981(k) may be requested from the IPU MLARS. Requests for authorization to use section 981 (k) as a basis for the confiscation of funds deposited in accounts outside the United States will be approved only if there is no viable alternative means of confiscating foreign property and should be considered only as a last resort. A request is not approved solely because it is considered more appropriate than the application of the Treaty mechanism. Investigators, agency managers and the general public should understand the objectives of forfeiture. Such knowledge helps to put the purpose of confiscation or seizure in context. Confiscation and seizure orders should never be issued without adequate evidence and a legal basis to support the policy objectives. Because of the complexity of confiscating an ongoing business and the potential for significant losses arising from such a seizure, the U.S. Attorney General`s Office should consult with MLARS before initiating a recovery action against an ongoing business or requesting a seizure or relocation to restrict an ongoing business. For more information, see Chapter 1 of the Forfeiture of Property Policy Manual. If you are faced with the seizure of non-fungible assets abroad that may require administration, a federal prosecutor or investigator should contact the United States. Marshals Service (USMS) at (202) 307-9009. The USMS may, if necessary, seek the assistance of diplomatic security services designated by the USMS to provide property management services for property seized or seized abroad.